World War I and 'Christ the King Sunday' (today)

Even if you’re a Protestant who doesn’t accept the magisterial authority of the bishop who founded tomorrow’s feast, you can use Christ the King Sunday to reflect on the political allegiance that, for Christians, trumps all others. You can decide whether you think Pius is right both to emphasize that Christ’s “kingdom is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things” and yet still has some authority “in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power.”

The 20th century notion of dedicating one Sunday each autumn to Christ the King emerged out of the Catholic Church’s ongoing wrestling with the worst war to that point in European history.

"On every side the dread phantom of war holds sway: there is scarce room for another thought in the minds of men. The combatants are the greatest and wealthiest nations of the earth..."

Benedict lamented the following summer, as he again appealed to all combatants to “put an end at last to this horrible slaughter..."

In 1922 Pius XI did like his predecessor and dedicated his first encyclical to the subject of peace: The belligerents of yesterday have laid down their arms but on the heels of this act we encounter new horrors...

Most notably, a revolution in Russia that replaced a devoutly Christian monarch with the “Red nightmare” of the “atheistic and bolshevistic Communism."

He reiterated that “as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ…” Hence the need for “a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ.”

There are some Roman Catholics who deny this. They claim they don’t have to be subject to their pope in defiance of Roman Catholic dogma on this issue.

Well, you see this is a matter of interpretation, and thus what manner of assent is required, as well as what the mannerr of assent itself all requires.

Reading what RCs say in forums, once can see that some assert that only infallible teaching is binding, though they disagree on what all these consist of, and which teachings in the CCC express them.

Some hold that infallible teachings include all of encyclicals, and some also include bulls, and others hold it only pertains to formal papal and conciliar decrees on faith and morals to all "The Church."

Others hold that only actual formal express definitions within decree to the church universal are covered by the infallibility clock, and not reasons/arguments for it (which is correct as per RC theology).

Still others hold that basically all public papal teaching requires assent (which is what so many popes expressed , but whether these statements were binding or not is part of the same problem), which usually requires them to be sedevacantist.

Still others hold that a second class (and third out of 4) of papal and magisterial teaching exists which require assent, while some (at least) reject social encyclicals as binding.

Then there can be another class of magisterial teaching and its manner of assent.

Then there are disagreements on what manner of assent requires. Some hold that "religious assent" does not disallow public expressions of disagreement.

Without further details, this led one exasperated poster on a RC forum to lament,

rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.

But the solution (before Francis at least) he was given was just obey everything:

Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis. Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31

For the alternative can result in what as one poster wryly stated,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.